On Nov 18, 2007 7:57 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > > The rules only ascribe importance to the actual judgement, not to the > > arguments presented; the CotC isn't even required to track them. So > > it's not as if any rule would be broken by doing that. > > I forgot that. How can we have a meaningful precedence/stare decisis > based system without a formal record of the actual arguments? > Part of the reason why a precedence/stare decisis system is so cumbersome to players who don't have hours to pour over the judicial database (and even that is incomplete).
BobTHJ
